Over the years I have made it a point to keep my relationship with my wife and our marriage off of my blog and definitely off of Facebook for sure. Granted, looking back through the years and lifespan of my blogs I see that I’ve scratched the surface enough for readers to know that I am indeed married to a wonderful, caring wife. I don’t just say that here because she reads my blog, it is said and conveyed daily in our private lives, just so y’all know I’m not looking for brownie points from her. My wife and I have a “bad” habit, we talk with each other all the time about things that actually matter, we go beyond talking about work (which is actually forbidden by both of us), the children, or the bills that pile up. Yes, we do talk about those important things but they are not allconsuming to the point where that is all we talk about. We are different in how we talk, I like to talk in a long winded manner, telling stories, and bringing the details to light. Yes, we have talked about that as well, seems to get worse as I age. My wife on the other hand is more emotional about things, eventhough she tries to be short and sweet, she suffers from a similar affliction of not being able to get to the point. She considers it a fault of hers, but I admire that she trusts me with her emotions. The other day we had one of those “out of the blue” conversations that she likes to start on occasion. Out of the blue for me but well thought about on her part. Just know this, I will be 47 next month and she just turned 40 this past June, so I personally understand we are not the same age we were when we got married 17 years ago. We’ve put on a few miles, a few pounds, a few wrinkles, and much gray hair for me personally, we don’t talk about her one or two she has pop up, we just color it and move on.

So, she asks me if I think she is turning into her mother as she gets older. I will explain my answers here as I explained them to her. A husband who pays attention to his wife sees changes over time, sees the different moods and generally knows what causes them and what cures them, he listens not only to what she is saying but what isn’t being said as well. I like to think I have a good handle on “reading” my wife and she has a great flare for doing the same to me. We have learned that there is a time and place for everything. I don’t know about other marriages but I consider ours healthy in many ways, the main one being we still love one another, it not tolerating each other, it’s wanting to be with each other, needing and depending on one another to get through each day and night. The answer to the question is no I don’t think she is turning into her mother. But, and this but raised an eyebrow with my wife, as we get older, as our children get older, I see her professional life taking over the mother and wife life. Meaning, she puts in long exhausting days at the office being a manager and being in charge of people, money, and property all with the goal of turning a profit. Most people don’t think of a doctor’s office as a business and the goal of every business is to make money. She has been an office manager there for 14 years, she knows her shit frontwards and backwards. On top of that, she does it all with just her high school GED. (Life happened, that’s all I want to say). But when she gets home she doesn’t need to be in charge, everything at home usually runs like a well oiled machine, thanks in no small way to my own personal efforts. You see, I work my 40 hour work week in three days over the weekend, so I am home all week long mostly.

Yes, I have seen her go from her early 20s to now 40, yes the body I knew for her then has changed, yes her mind has matured as well, and yes I do see the start of the crows feet wrinkles and the occasional gray hair or three. Big deal, we’ve gotten older, it was expected, I knew it would happen, her problem, in my opinion as told to her, is she has yet to accept the fact that she has now turned 40. Women, in general, in my opinion, treat 40 like a death sentence or something that is so feared that when it happens that they magically are going to change and not be wanted any longer. I have never, nor will I ever, tell my wife I want to trade her in for two 20 year olds. I like where we are in life together. Does my wife wear a moo-moo? No she does not. She does wear sweats and my old t-shirts around the house. When not at work she has her hair up in a pony tail and isn’t wearing make-up, which is what I like. I don’t like all the make-up and bullshit, but she does, so I shut up. But what she really wants to know is if I think that she is mentally, or the way she speaks, or how she acts, or how she thinks, or is anything she does show signs of her turning into her mother. This ultimately could be the question of death for me. I might need to sleep with one eye open, she does spend a good deal of time watching the I.D. channel. My fate has now come crystal clear to me, it has all been a dream, now I get to die a horrific death that nobody will ever be able to blame on her. But does it have to be so bad? I think not, and here’s why.

I explained to my wife that she need not worry about her own personal growth, evolution, and development because she should be happy that she remains her own person. It’s true, she’s changed, I’ve changed, we all change for better or worse for whatever the reason may be. I tease her a bit though, and tell her I like her mother, she has some great traits and qualities which I really admire. At the same time, I enjoy who my wife is, how she acts, how she speaks, how she thinks, how she moves, how she dresses, and especially how she makes me feel every single day, which is loved. I unfortunately do not think my answers are well taken or understood simply because I can only give likenesses and observations, because in my opinion, the only person who truly knows the truth is her and how she feels. Yes, I am her partner, but no I don’t read minds, a person can only learn by what he is shown or told when it comes to a relationship such as marriage. Is she the same woman I met all those years ago? Yes and no. But here’s the catch, I like who she is and how she represents herself, she is her own person, I feel lucky to be allowed to be with her through the best of times and the worst of times.

To sum this all up, we all change as we age, we all make a choice to either accept those changes in our partner or to not, and sadly that is why we see marriages fail, failing because people don’t think long term, they don’t consider that maturity makes us different, and we don’t prepare mentally for those kinds of challenges. Why? Only reason I can think of is it is because we are selfish. But I’m no marriage counselor, I’m no expert in the field of relationships, I just a married man who still enjoys the company of his wife. I offer only one piece of advice, find what works for y’all and nurture that entire process and live life like there is no tomorrow, because, you know, shit happens when we least expect it to happen. I look at my late grandparents, married 83 years at the time of his death and she died of a broken heart 2 months later. That’s love, that’s needing the other person to be in your life, that’s being heart-broken when a part of you is missing.

Okay, I’m done with my story, my peak into my private life, and I hope y’all understand that our marriage is not one of tolerance but one of acceptance. We are who we are, it is what it is, and we all just need to relax and be who we are comfortable being. Or be like me, an asshole tainted by my dislikes for people in the general population of our planet. Yes, I have a low tolerance for most people, but at the same time I have compassion towards those I care about, more often than not there is no middle ground, and I don’t play well with others. With that being said, I end this post, but fear not, there will be more, much much more.

We have been waiting for this momentous day for quite a while. Finally the steel was going up, finally we were having an erection. It marks the beginning of the end, so to say, each day forward should show new progress, each day forward this should start looking a little bit more like the restaurant it is destined to become. One day, in the very near future, this Brewingz will join the evergrowing population of places to eat in this area. I remember, not too terribly long ago, all of this was a large empty field. Soon, this commercial development will close, leaving us who live here, many new places to enjoy and explore. More so, the completion of this Brewingz will bring closure to this project for my company of employment. But, not waiting around, we are already in the preparations in providing bids on new work to be done. For now, the picture taken by me last night, marks the next evolution for this building, and puts us one step closer to success. I’m sure this isn’t the last picture y’all will see of the progress, so don’t worry, I will have more.

OK, so I’m a grown man who takes an interest in things that everyone claims do not exist because of the lack of hard evidence. There is a large, long winded list of things that are said to only exist in a person’s imagination. Anyway, I came across a report which claims they actually found the fossil remains of a unicorn and it got me thinking about how one person’s proof ends up usually what fuels it all being discredited, because that’s what we hard headed humans do, we don’t believe shit. A unicorn is a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead. Any type of horse with a horn could be considered a Unicorn. Is it true or false that a horse with a horn is more likely to exist than say a sasquatch? No, I’m not bashing the sasquatch either, I would like for it to become more than myth and legend as well. But, here we are now, so we have to ask ourselves the question “can horses have horns”?

There are documented archaeological digs where unicorn skeletons have been found. Whether or not this is an actual unicorn or just a horse with a horn is not hasn’t been determined. Even if it was a horse with a horn by definition, this is labeled a unicorn. There was actually a skeleton of a horse with a horn found near the vicinity of Quedlinburg near Mount Zeunikenberg. The actual statement claims this:

“Fossil unicorn; in Latin, unicornu fossile . Some authors have given this name to a bony substance, similar to ivory or to a twisted horn covered with spirals, that is found, although rarely, within the earth. Mr. Gmelin, in his Siberian voyage, believes that these are fish teeth. He reports that in 1724, one of these horns was found beneath the earth, in the territory of Yakutsk, in Siberia; he assumes that it does not belong to the mythical animal to which the nameunicorn has been given; but he believes, and it is very likely, that it comes from the cetacean animal that is called narwhal . The same author speaks of another horn of the same kind that was found in 1741, in swampy terrain in the same country: however, he observes that the narwhal that is commonly found in the seas of Greenland, does not exist in the Arctic Ocean, which borders the North of Siberia.

What would seem to cast doubt on this matter is a fact reported by the illustrious Leibnitz in his Protogoea ; following the account of the famous Otto Guericke, he says that in 1663, someone pulled from a limestone quarry at Mount Zeunikenberg, in the territory of Quedlinberg, the skeleton of a terrestrial quadruped crouched on its hind parts, but on which the head was raised, and which sported on its forehead a horn of five ells, that is to say approximately ten feet in length and as thick as the leg of a man, but ending in a point. This skeleton was broken by the ignorance of the workers and pulled piece by piece from the ground; only the horn and the head remained whole, as well as some ribs, and the spine; these bones were brought to the abbess-princess of Quedlinberg. Mr. de Leibniz provides in this same work the image of this skeleton. He says on this subject that according to the report of Hyeronimus Lupus and Balthasar Tellez, Portuguese authors, a quadruped the size of a horse, on which the forehead is armed with a horn, exists in the land of the Abyssinians. See Liebnitz, Protogoea, pages 63 and 64 . In spite of all these authorities, it is maddening that the skeleton of which Leibniz speaks was not more carefully examined, and there is every reason to believe that that horn really belonged to a fish.

One must not confuse the horn or the bony substance of which it is here a question with another earthy, calcareous, and absorbent substance that some authors have very improperly called unicornu fossile , and that, based on appearances, is a kind of chalk or marl.”

This report can be seen at The Encyclopedia Of Diderot & d’Alembert and shows that there could actually have been unicorns that existed and has fossils to prove it, even removing the fact that this is one of many skeletons that could have been discovered the odds of them existing are still higher than that of a sasquatch.

We all know the process of evolution is a long and in depth process. Yes, I’m one of those kinds of people, I strongly agree that evolution exists in every species on our great planet Dirt. Things like speciation and adaptation contribute to how evolution works. Think of it using this example I have prepared for y’all. Let’s label species (a) horses and they are a specific type of horse breed that exist only in desert climates.

So now lets say (a) exist in environment (y). The entirety of (a) exists within (y). (Y) is any possible desert climate. (y) experiences some type of disaster, and (a) must now leave (y). (a) is now split into different regions around (y). Half of (a) now exists in (x) the other half exists in (z). These are two separate climates. Now at the initial split the horse species is still the same initial species in itself. Now lets say environment (z) is more of a rocky terrain and one half of (a) is not use to this but still live here. Over thousands of years randoms variations in their species will occur to help them survive in that specific environment. So over the course of 100’s and 1,000’s of years the horse species that live in (x) is still predominately the same as before but the half that exist in (z) has evolved into a different type of species due to adaption and environmental changes. They are now called deltahorse.

Now lets say the half of (a) that exist in (z) have a rock they are allergic to, or get rashes from. They usually itch on their head, so to solve this problem they rub their head on other rocks to stop the itch. Over 1000’s of years there head could become sharp and pointy and eventually shape up to become a horn. This is just a random possibility and I’m not a scientist so we will just roll will my logic here. Note, almost anything is possible, and we see genetic mutations in evolution all the time that are bizarre to us but they happened for specific reasons. So this is a viable possibility even if it may not be likely. The fact is though, stranger things have happened during the course of species evolution.

If a horse is born with a deformity such as a horn, it would still be labeled a unicorn. I mean again this is possible, there are women that are living with 3 boobs and even guys with 2 penises. What could the reasons be for that? Freaks of nature? So, a deformity or mutation in a horse that let’s them grow a horn from their head is plausible. I’m not saying that they ever have or actually exist, nor am I trying to convince y’all of anything, I’m just saying its an interesting concept.

(Find my, Scorpion Sting, opinions at the bottom, following the conclusion of the Gene Simmons interview. The interview and picture were borrowed from Esquire without prior permission. Everything, with the exception of my thoughts and my opinions, are not my words and I stake no claim to the information.)

I spoke with my father about his legacy, the legacy of his contemporaries, and the state of the music industry today. Invariably, it seemed, we began to talk about file-sharing.

But this is not that old story of an out-of-touch one-percenter crying victim. As so many pointed out during the now-infamous Napster public relations war, the rich/famous/established musicians are not the victims of the digital revolution. My father instead laments the loss of opportunity for my generation, those who have begun to sense that it may no longer simply be a matter of dusting our hands, learning a skill, and putting in the time. There is a system that is broken for those of us who love songwriting, instruments, and all the soul of the analog, and it is now working against us — unless we conform. Unless we decide to stick, safely, to pop, and let gray men in a boardroom write our songs for us, dress us, and sell us from somewhere in the shadows.

The death of rock music came, as we all feared, not as a bright, burning explosion, but as a candle that slowly faded away—and in my father’s view, we are all at fault, for slowly leeching its fire without giving back any of our own.

NICK SIMMONS: You once said the music business isn’t dying — it’s dead. What would you say to young musicians and songwriters today trying to navigate this new terrain?

GENE SIMMONS: Don’t quit your day job is a good piece of advice. When I was coming up, it was not an insurmountable mountain. Once you had a record company on your side, they would fund you, and that also meant when you toured they would give you tour support. There was an entire industry to help the next Beatles, Stones, Prince, Hendrix, to prop them up and support them every step of the way. There are still record companies, and it does apply to pop, rap, and country to an extent. But for performers who are also songwriters — the creators — for rock music, for soul, for the blues — it’s finally dead.

Rock is finally dead.

“Rock did not die of old age. It was murdered.”

I am so sad that the next 15-year-old kid in a garage someplace in Saint Paul, that plugs into his Marshall and wants to turn it up to ten, will not have anywhere near the same opportunity that I did. He will most likely, no matter what he does, fail miserably. There is no industry for that anymore. And who is the culprit? There’s always the changing tide of interests — music taste changes with each generation. To blame that is silly. That was always the exciting part, after all: “What’s next?” But there’s something else. The death of rock was not a natural death. Rock did not die of old age. It was murdered. And the real culprit is that kid’s 15-year-old next-door neighbor, probably a friend of his. Maybe even one of the bandmates he’s jamming with. The tragedy is that they seem to have no idea that they just killed their own opportunity — they killed the artists they would have loved. Some brilliance, somewhere, was going to be expressed, and now it won’t, because it’s that much harder to earn a living playing and writing songs. No one will pay you to do it.

The masses do not recognize file-sharing and downloading as stealing because there’s a copy left behind for you — it’s not that copy that’s the problem, it’s the other one that someonereceived but didn’t pay for. The problem is that nobody will pay you for the 10,000 hours you put in to create what you created. I can only imagine the frustration of all that work, and having no one value it enough to pay you for it.

It’s very sad for new bands. My heart goes out to them. They just don’t have a chance. If you play guitar, it’s almost impossible. You’re better off not even learning how to play guitar or write songs, and just singing in the shower and auditioning for The X Factor. And I’m not slamming The X Factor, or pop singers. But where’s the next Bob Dylan? Where’s the next Beatles? Where are the songwriters? Where are the creators? Many of them now have to work behind the scenes, to prop up pop acts and write their stuff for them.

Here’s a frightening thought: from 1958 to 1983, name 100 musical anythings that are iconic, that seem to last beyond their time.

NS: The Beatles, The Stones…

“From ’84 until today, name some. Just give me a few — artists that, even after their passing, are or will be inescapable.”

GS: Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, the numerous classic Motown artists, Madonna, U2, Prince, Pink Floyd… The list goes on. Individuals, all unanimously considered classic, timeless, revolutionary. Now from ’84 until today, name some. Just give me a few — artists that, even after their passing, are or will be inescapable. Artists on the same level as the ones I just mentioned. Even if you don’t like them, they will be impossible to avoid, or deny, even after they’ve stopped making music and maybe passed on. In fact, they become bigger when they stop. Name artists that even compare with the ones I just named.

NS: Nirvana?

GS: Nirvana. That’s about it. They are thenotable exception. Keep thinking. It’s harder, isn’t it, to name artists with as much confidence? The pickings are so slim, and it’s not an arbitrary difference. There was a 10- to 15-year period in the ’60s and ’70s that gave birth to almost every artist we now call “iconic,” or “classic.” If you know anything about what makes longevity, about what makes something an everlasting icon, it’s hard to find after that. The craft is gone, and that is what technology, in part, has brought us. What is the next Dark Side of the Moon? Now that the record industry barely exists, they wouldn’t have a chance to make something like that. There is a reason that, along with the usual top-40 juggernauts, some of the biggest touring bands are half old people, like me.

NS: What does this bode for the industry of the future?

GS: There is no record industry, unfortunately. Not like there was. There are some terrific bands out there — Tame Impala, which you turned me on to, and so on. And during the ’60s and ’70s they would’ve become big, I’m convinced.

But, strangely, today, everything pales before Psy’s “Gangnam Style.” Look up the numbers on that song. He blows everyone else out of the water.

NS: The biggest song of all time is an Internet meme. Sounds almost like popular music is jumping the shark.

GS: Yes. My guess is that despite those numbers, it will still pass from the public eye in a short time. I don’t know what that means, but it’s clear that longevity is practically dead, and new artists that stand the test of time — meaning, artists whose art can survive them, who become icons — are so rare as to almost be nonexistent.

NS: Considering that it doesn’t seem to affect you directly, how did you become so outspoken about this? Along with a few public figures I could name, you’ve been one of the most vocal critics of file-sharing.

GS: My perspective is decidedly different than perhaps the perspective of somebody who was born here. If you’re a native-born American, my contention is that you take a lot of things for granted. All the freedoms and opportunities you have here are expected, and you feel entitled. I think this has taken over the American psyche. I find that many of the more patriotic people are immigrants, and they’re the ones who stand still when the flag goes up, out of gratitude. My sense is that file-sharing started in predominantly white, middle- and upper-middle-class young people who were native-born, who felt they were entitled to have something for free, because that’s what they were used to. If you believe in capitalism — and I’m a firm believer in free-market capitalism — then that other model is chaos. It destroys the structure. You’ll never understand unless you’re the one that wrote the song, and you were the one that had the band, whose music people took without paying you for. Once you’re the one who’s been robbed, there’s a moment of clarity.

And let’s be clear: I’m not the guy to be pouting and complaining about stuff. I make a decent living. I’m very, very lucky. But that’s because we started before the chaos, in the days when people had to buy records. If you didn’t like a band, you didn’t buy their albums, and the people decided.

NS: They voted with their dollar.

“Patriotism is corny, and that’s a sad state of affairs.”

GS: That’s right. And going back to that national psyche thing… I firmly believe that there’s something missing in America, and it used to exist, and it’s now corny. Patriotism is corny, and that’s a sad state of affairs. It really is. I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on — I find faults in both, some social and some political issues — but everywhere, people are taking a lot of things for granted. And you would know the majesty that is America if you came from hundreds of other countries I could name. If you come from a place where every day above ground is a life-threatening event, and you had the same ambition and values as the most successful people here, you would never reach the same heights. And of course this applies to Western society at large, but America especially. I think every day, we forget about the — and here’s the corny part — glory of America. And that’s too fucking bad.

NS: Any last thoughts?

GS: Always, but I think I’ve talked enough for a lifetime.

*********** End of Interview *********

Thoughts from Scorpion Sting:

I feel the need to express my thoughts and opinions on this particular interview, not necessarily on the words, but the contents, ideas, and opinions. Why? I too, have been watching Rock & Roll for many, many years. As a consumer, I have seen many trends in the music industry, I have seen great bands not just fade away over time, but vanish overnight as well. Sadly, nobody really knows why this happens all the time and why some bands seem to remain relevant through the good times and the bad across multiple generations. I’m reminded of this because of what I witnessed and was a part of this past Sunday evening while attending the final show in the KISS and Def Leppard tour. Including my crew of 3 generations, we saw many fans there sharing or introducing their love for two rock legends with their children and grandchildren. It truly was amazing to witness the next generations having such a great time at such a fantastic show.

When I see rock legends do interviews such as this particular one, it shows people that music truly is a business that is propelled for the simplicity of supply and demand. I know I’m not the only one who grew up with rock and roll and continue to enjoy it to this very day, the concert we just saw as a family proves that fact hands down in my opinion. Of course, I’m witnessing the fading of many of my favorite bands, simply because they are getting to an age where they must slow down, yes I’m saying they are getting to old to perform these days. Many of the legends don’t give up, many of them still put out awesome music, some of them are still doing it after 40 or more years, and that is impressive to me.

So, where am I going with this little monolog? I guess I just wanted to agree a bit with what Gene Simmons noted, the music industry has evolved to a point where music isn’t important any longer, the business of making money is what is important and with that, myself and everyone else, suffer. In the digital age we live in now it almost seems that live concerts have become irrelevant because now we can Google a show we missed or watch it for free from the comfort of our homes on YouTube. As a whole, people have become to busy and to lazy to get out and enjoy a show of any sorts, and that gets reflected directly when bands decide where to tour. Do I see this downward spiral continuing? Absolutely, because the music offered right now, today, by the so called “fresh” artists really does suck ass. Personally, its not what I’m looking for in music. So what am I forced to do? The same as millions of other deciples of old school rock and rock played with actual instruments, I have turned to the digital world so I can hear what I want, when I want, and repeat it as many times as I want.

Anyway, just wanted to share a little food for thought to get y’all thinking about the music y’all love and share the opinions of an all time rock legend, Gene Simmons. I hope y’all enjoyed this post as much as I enjoyed putting it together for y’all.

The Sting Of The Scorpion Blog is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Except where otherwise noted, all content on The Sting Of The Scorpion Blog is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. This means you are free to copy, distribute, or transmit any of "The Sting Of The Scorpion Blog' content. However, you must attribute the content to "The Sting Of The Scorpion Blog" in some easily identifiable way (preferably with a link back to the post from which the content originated). The contents of The Sting Of The Scorpion Blog cannot be used for any commercial purposes. You cannot alter, transform, or build new works from The Sting Of The Scorpion Blog's content. For a more detailed explanation of the rights granted under this license, please take a look at the license’s page on the Creative Commons web site, which includes a link to the full legal text.